Park Direct UK Popla appeal

mannerssr

Hi All,

Looking for some guidance please.
I recently got a PCN redirected to me from a car main dealer on a loan vehicle that was I was using.

PCN ---

24 HOURS CONTROLLED PARKING
NOTICE SERVED DATE 07th October 2015 REFERENCE NUMBER CONTRAVENTION DATE 02110/2015 CONTRAVENTION TIME 19:56 VEHICLE REGISTRATION
Park Direct Uk Ltd have obtained your details from the DVLA las the registered keeper of this vehicle through the reasonable cause request of pursuing an outstanding parking charge We believe that a parking charge is payable with respect to the above vehicle for the following alleged contravention: Stopping or waiting where stopping or waiting restrictions are in force at a location which had the terms of parking clearly displayed on the warning signs, On 02/10/2015 you were the registered keeper of the motor vehicle with Vehicle Registration Number when the vehicle was believed to be stopping or lwaiting at r/o 233 High Street,UB8 1 LD, UB8 1 LD at 19:56 which resulted in the issue of the PARKING CHARGE NOTICE RFF Nn-
HOW TO PAY
The driver is required to pay this parking charge in full using one of the payment methods described below If within 28 days from the day after in which this notice is served, the parking charge is not paid in full and we have not been made aware of the name and a service address for the driver we will take further action to recover the amount owed. The payment slip overleaf must accompany every payment-All cheques and postal orders must be made payable to Park Direct UK Ltd. (Post dated cheques will not be accepted). We will send you a receipt for your payment if you request one.
ONLINE
aymen s can be made online at •,_:171 24 hours a day 7 days a week
POSTAL PAYMENTS
Can be made by completing the payment slip and returning it by post to: Payments Department. 1 Furzeground Way, Stockley Park East, Uxbridge, UB11 1BD. Please do not send cash by post. Please ensure that the Parking Charge Notice number is written on the back of the che•ue/•ostal order. Please ensure our •a ment reaches us in time.
TELEPHONE
To pay by VISA, MASTERCARD, DELTA, SWITCH or SOLO CARD please call 0845 026 7155 (Mon - Fri 09:30 to 17:00). Please have your Parking Charge Notice and card details ready when you call. Please note there is a £1.50 charge for card payments.
IN PERSON
Payments can be made at the Park Direct UK payment office: 1 Furzeground Way, Stockley Park East, Uxbridge, UB11 1BD. Personal callers at the payment office may pay by cash, credit/debit card, cheque (supported by a cheque guarantee card) or by postal order.
If payment is made by post please detach the slip overleaf, return it with your payment, to the address below Please return to: 1 Furzeground Way, Stockley Park East. Uxbridge. UB11 1BD.

IF THE PARKING CHARGE HAS NOT BEEN PAID
A Parking Charge of £100.00 is now payable and must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the day after this notice is served. If the Parking Charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date this notice is served. a reduced Parking Charge of £80.00 will be accepted as a full and final settlement. If, after 28 days beginning with the day after that this notice is served, the Parking Charge Notice has not been paid in full, and we have not been made aware of the name and a current serviceable address for the driver. we do have the right under schedule 4 of the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012, to recover the charges from the registered keeper of the vehicle at the time it was parked so much of that amount that remains unpaid_
HOW TO MAKE REPRESENTATION
Ground for Representation: Please tick appropriate box(es) I never was the keeper of the vehicle in question
I became the keeper after that date Vehicle was taken without my consent (i.e. stolen. please supply evidence e.g. written confirmation from police / insurance company, detailing when you reported it stolen and the location you left it) The contravention did not occur
APPEALS
If you believe that the charge should not be paid and wish to challenge this PCN, please write to Appeals Department. 1 Furzeground Way, Stockley Park East, Uxbridge, UB11 1BD. All correspondence must include your name, address, reference number and vehicle registration number. Drivers who breach the permitted parking terms and conditions are liable to pay a charge, according to the list of tariffs displayed in the car park. All appeals are genuinely pursued and the decision to accept or reject an appeal is based on evidence supplied. It is important that you supply all of the evidence to support the appeal. Park Direct UK Ltd will not enter into multiple appeal processes. All cases are placed on hold upon receipt of a written appeal. Any driver appealing against a Parking Charge Notice within 14 days from the date of issue will be given the opportunity to provide payment at the reduced amount in the event that their appeal is unsuccessful. You have 28 days from the notice serve date to lodge an appeal, you should be aware that any driver lodging an appeal later than 14 days from the date of issue will be liable for the full amount in the event that their appeal is unsuccessful. On receiving an appeal we will respond to you in writing within 28 working days. If your appeal is not upheld. then you will be eligible to use the Independent Appeals Service POPLA. Details will be made available at the appropriate time.
You may now pay this parking charge notice or if you was not the driver of this vehicle at the contravention time, you may supply us with a name and current address for the driver and pass this notice on to them. If you are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was hired out at the time the contravention took place, please also let us know and provide us with a copy of the hire agreement and a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. Please note that we may have a right to recover unpaid parking charges from the registered keeper under the Protection Of Freedoms Act 2012. The Information Commissioner and the DVLA each operates a complaints procedure for you to use if you believe your data has been used inappropriately to supply us with the vehicles registered keeper details. Information on how to complain can be found at tor DVLA and tor the Information Commissioners Office.
DATA PROTECTION
Park Direct UK Ltd will process your information for the operation of their parking enforcement scheme Processing may include the use of cameras to record data. Your information mray be disclosed to, or requested from the DVLA. Records are made available to them thus ensuring the DVLA is satisfied that all data is expedited in the manner agreed and to ensure security of storage and access so as to comply with Data Protection Act 1998_ Data may be shared with third parties in relation to the issue of a Parking Charge Notice or Immobilisation in order to assist with a parking charge appeal. Park Direct UK Ltd may also disclose data to a third party on the institution of legal proceedings.

Using advice from this forum I drafted and sent the following response.

Appeal ---


19/10/2015

Dear Park Direct UK Ltd,

I have been alleged driver of the vehicle of ******* by the registered keeper and wish to invoke your appeals process for the parking charge notice reference number: ***** dated 07/10/2015.

I deny all liability to pay this parking charge on the following grounds:

Park Direct signage is non-compliant with the British Parking Associations’ Code of Practice and no contract was made with the driver.

The use of Automatic Number Plate Recognition for Notice to Keeper cases, is the only photographic evidence you can use according to the British Parking Associations Codes of practice and from the pictures raised on the parking charge notice, you can clearly see that the use of automatic number plate recognition is absent, furthermore a front and back view of the car is supposed to be used, suggesting bad practice on your part.

The parking charge notice issued does not specify a particular contravention and the photographic evidence provided cannot be corroborated as evidence that the driver breached any contract on that day.

The parking charge is disproportionate, punitive and does not reflect a genuine pre-estimate of loss to your company or the landowner for the alleged contravention.

As you are aware POPLA have upheld all appeals where this is raised and I invite you to cancel this parking charge now. However should you deny this appeal then please issue a POPLA code for the next stage of the appeals process. Failure to supply a POPLA code will result in formal complaints being made to the BPA and the DVLA.

Further appeal points will be raised at POPLA for consideration which will include the unredacted contract with the landowner being requested.



Yours faithfully


Mannerssr
Alleged driver


This got rejected as I expected it would with the following letter.

Rejection ---

Site: r/o 233 High Street,UB8 1 LD Issue date: 07/10/2015
Thank you for your appeal received on 20/10/2015 regarding the above detailed Parking Charge Notice. We have reviewed the case and considered the comments that you have made. This appeal has also been considered in conjunction with the evidence gathered by the parking attendant. Our records show that this notice was correctly issued as your vehicle was parked in a way which breaches the Terms and Conditions of Parking.
This PCN was issued because your vehicle was found to be parked in an area where it is strictly prohibited. There are numerous signs displayed in various locations around the site including the
entrances and one directly in front of your vehicle (33 in total) to ensure all approaching motorists are fully aware of the restrictions in force. We must remind you that it is the driver's duty to ensure that they observe and adhere to the parking restrictions in force when entering private property and would advise
that you do so in the future so as to prevent any further PCN's being issued. The location at which the contravention occurred is very tight, confined and restricted which opens it up to the possibility of
extreme congestion due to motorists stopping/waiting/picking up/dropping off in such a small area. It is for this reason that there are such restrictions in force to ease the flow of traffic and prevent congestion. The photographic evidence was taken by a parking warden and not an ANPR camera therefore it is not a requirement to state''ANPR CAMERA IN USE". There is also no requirement to take a front and rear picture of the vehicle. The PCN clearly states that the contravention was stopping/waitigm where stopping/waiting restrictions are in force.
In regards to the next point of your letter, please refer to BeavisysParkingeye 2015] EWCA Civ 402
which clearly explains and outlines that the charge is not punitive, unreasonable, disproportionate or a penalty;
5. The judge held that a motorist who parks his car in the car park does so on the terms displayed in
the notice. As a result, he enters into a contract with ParkingEye to abide by the rules of the car park, which include an obligation to leave within two hours. He also agrees that if he overstays he will pay the parking charge (£85, reduced to £50 for payment within 14 days). The judge accepted that ParkingEye did not suffer any specific financial loss if a motorist overstayed, because, if the space in question had been vacated, it would have either have remained unoccupied or would have been occupied by another car free of charge. He therefore held that the parking charge had the characteristics of a penalty, in the sense in which that expression is conventionally used, but one that was commercially justifiable
because it was neither improper in its purpose nor manifestly excessive in its amount. In reaching that conclusion he was influenced by the terms of section 56 and schedule 4 of the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, which confer on operators of private car parks the right to recover parking charges from the registered keepers of vehicles. (For these purposes a "parking charge" is defined as a sum in the nature of a fee or charge payable under a contract or a sum in the nature of damages for tort.) For similar reasons he held that the undertaking to pay the charge was not an unfair term and was not rendered unenforceable by the Regulations. and included in their lease is the right to park/use of the bays for their customers, i the leaseholder was unable to provide parking, they would lose customers and cancel their lease thus, making this charge commercially justified, Unfortunately on this occasion, we are forced to uphold the PCN as it was issued correctly. We have now extended the discounted payment period by 14 days to allow you time to pay the discounted settlement amount. Please now make payment of £60 to reach us by 05/11/2015 or £100 to reach us by 19/11/2015. We must advise you that once the discounted settlement rate passes it will not be offered again.
You now have a number of options; 1.Pay the parking charge notice. Payment can be made online at or by calling the automated payment line on 0845 026 7158 2.You may also make an appeal to POPLA — the independent appeals service on the following website popla quoting verification no ********** within 28 days from the date of this letter. If you opt for independent arbitration of your case, you will lose the opportunity to pay the lower amount and £100.00 will be payable in the event your appeal is rejected.Please note that the POPLA is unable to waive a parking charge notice due to mitigating circumstances and a decision will be based solely on the facts and evidence. A list of their accepted appeal reasons are as follows:
The vehicle was not improperly parked. The parking charge exceeded the appropriate amount. The vehicle was stolen. I am not liable for the parking charge Please note that if you opt for the POPLA appeals process, all evidence collected relating to this case will be submitted to POPLA. By law we are also required to inform you that Ombudsman Services () provides an alternative dispute resolution service that would be competent to deal with your appeal. However, we have not chosen to participate in their alternative dispute resolution service. As such should you wish to appeal then you must do so to POPLA, as explained above.'

Yours sincerely,
Appeals Department Park Direct UK Ltd


Now looking to draft an appeal to POPLA and I am looking for some pointers, as not so much information around for non registered keepers.

enfield_freddy

remove the popla code , now

Redx

then start drafting a popla appeal , using recent examples from 2015 , preferably in the last few months, altered according to last weeks Beavis result

Coupon-mad

Dear Park Direct UK Ltd,

I have been alleged driver of the vehicle of ******* by the registered keeper

Ouch...the word 'driver' should never have been used in the same sentence as 'I', not even qualified by 'alleged'. Should have said 'I was the lessee of the vehicle under licence from the owner but the driver has not been established'.

Never mind. Write the POPLA appeal as 'the lessee under licence from the owner (therefore the keeper as defined in the POFA) and the driver has not been evidenced.'

Did you get sent your own PCN in your name?

Did it include the hire/loan agreement?

Or has there never been a PCN sent to you in your name?

Ian011

Asking you to call an 0845 number is a breach of the industry Code of Practice as well as being a breach of Regulation 41 of the Consumer Contracts Regulations 2013.

mannerssr

Going to sit down this evening and draft a popla appeal.

Never mind. Write the POPLA appeal as 'the lessee under licence from the owner (therefore the keeper as defined in the POFA) and the driver has not been evidenced.' Great okay will use this going forward.

Did you get sent your own PCN in your name? No PCN in my name, the communication I received was from the dealership who kindly forwarded the PCN to me. I then appealed directly to Park Direct UK

Did it include the hire/loan agreement? No, I don't remember seeing anything in the loan / hire agreement.

Or has there never been a PCN sent to you in your name? Never been a PCN in my name.

mannerssr

Thanks to Labwalker I have used his/her Popla appeal to put together the below. Would appreciate feedback please.

As 'the lessee under licence from the owner (therefore the keeper as defined in the POFA) and the driver has not been evidenced.' I wish to appeal. The background is that there was no windscreen ticket applied, at all. I have the following appeal points:

1. There was no PCN issued at all.
2. There is no evidence of any contravention because photos were taken at a distance, by an “attendant” on a mobile camera I believe
3. The NTK fails to establish “ keeper liability”
4. Inadequate , unclear & non compliant sign
5. No contract- and if POPLA find there was one ,I hereby cancel it
6. Failure to comply with the Consumer Contracts(Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013
7. Lack of sufficient contractual authority
8. Breach of DVLA KADOE contract. No audit trail and no reasonable cause.
9.Operation is not reasonable, consistent or transparent
10. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty



1. There was no PCN issued at all. This has left me unsure whether to research paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 of the POFA2012 or paragraph 9 instead. The deadlines for service of an NTK and other facts differ, so this hybrid posted 'Notice' was ambiguous, unfair and has unjustly jeopardised my appeal.

2. There is no evidence of any contravention because photos were taken at a distance, by an 'attendant' on a mobile phone camera I believe. This merely shows the vehicle on site, this is not evidence of parking, nor any contravention whatsoever.

3. The NTK fails to establish ‘keeper liability’ as shown (these words are from paragraph 9 of Schedule 4 but equally I could quote paragraph 8 because of this hybrid document):

The Notice to Keeper is not compliant with POFA 2012, Schedule 4 due to these omissions:
''9(2)The notice must—
(b)inform the keeper that the driver is required to pay parking charges in respect of the specified period of parking and that the parking charges have not been paid in full;
(c)describe the parking charges due from the driver as at the end of that period, the circumstances in which the requirement to pay them arose (including the means by which the requirement was brought to the attention of drivers) and the other facts that made them payable;
(d)specify the total amount of those parking charges that are unpaid, as at a time which is—
(i)specified in the notice; and
(ii)no later than the end of the day before the day on which the notice is either sent by post or, as the case may be, handed to or left at a current address for service for the keeper (see sub-paragraph (4));
(e)state that the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and invite the keeper—
(i)to pay the unpaid parking charges; or
(ii)if the keeper was not the driver of the vehicle, to notify the creditor of the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver and to pass the notice on to the driver;
(f)warn the keeper that if, after the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice is given—
(i)the amount of the unpaid parking charges specified under paragraph (d) has not been paid in full, and
(ii)the creditor does not know both the name of the driver and a current address for service for the driver,
the creditor will (if all the applicable conditions under this Schedule are met) have the right to recover from the keeper so much of that amount as remains unpaid;
(h)identify the creditor and specify how and to whom payment or notification to the creditor may be made.''

Where paragraph 9 requires certain wording, it is omitted - except a small amended sentence on the payment slip (which has been found in Council PATAS appeals, not to count as the 'PCN' because it is a separate section, designed to be removed). Also, as keeper I cannot be expected to guess the 'circumstances in which the requirement to pay...arose' because the charge is stated to be based on 'an outstanding parking charge'. This so-called outstanding 'parking charge' is not quantified and the signs do not support that contention (see point 4) therefore the NTK misstates the alleged contravention and fails to meet the strict requirements of POFA2012.

Conversely the NTK fails to identify the 'creditor' and fails to state a 'period of parking' so it again does not meet the requirements of POFA 2012. It is not for me to guess who the creditor is. It could be 'ParkDirectUK 'or 'ParkDirectUK Ltd' (both legal names are on the NTK), or alternatively the creditor could be their client, or the landowner, or another party.

There is no 'keeper liability' from a fundamentally flawed NTK and POFA 2012 only applies to parking events. This was not a parking event at all, it was an example of ParkDirect's well documented (in the national press) sharp practice in taking photos of any vehicle which drives through/turns around near their operative with a mobile phone camera, then sending out speculative demands.
POPLA Assessor Matthew Shaw has stated that the validity of a Notice to Keeper is fundamental to establishing liability for a parking charge. ''Where a Notice is to be relied upon to establish liability ... it must, as with any statutory provision, comply with the Act.'' As the Notice was not compliant with the Act due to the many omissions of statutory wording, it was not properly given and so there is no keeper liability.


4. Inadequate, unclear & non-compliant sign

The signs do not identify, as required for a 'distance contract' within the Consumer Contracts(Information, Cancellation & Additional Payments) Regs
''(d) where the trader is acting on behalf of another trader, the geographical address and identity of that other trader;
(e) the geographical address of the place of business of the trader, and, where the trader acts on behalf of another trader, the geographical address of the place of business of that other trader, where the consumer can address any complaints;''

In case Park Direct dismisses this appeal point, saying merely that this type of contract is exempt from these regulations, I contend it is not because the only exemptions are listed in the Regs and this 'contract' fits none of the stated exemptions. This is certainly not a simple, immediate ‘day to day transaction’ defined by the EU in the Guidance as ‘buying a cup of coffee or a newspaper’. In fact, providing parking spaces as a 'service' for a fee is specifically stated as covered by the Regulations, as shown here in the EU Guidance behind the original Directive upon which the UK Law is based:
'' Service contracts...should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to...the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.
For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive. ''


5. No contract - and if POPLA find there was one, I hereby cancel it.
The elements of a contract are missing in this case and the Park Direct should never have sent me a demand for money. Their 'service' of supposedly offering a parking space was not accepted by the driver. In this instance the alleged contract was not concluded by performance nor did consideration flow between the parties - in short, no parking 'service' was provided. The driver arrived; passenger got out and read a parking sign, relayed information to the driver about the sign and then the driver left straight away. Photographic evidence provided by Park Direct show this to be the case.

Yet Park Direct has sent me a NTK charging for a non-existent contract for an unperformed service. As such, under the Unsolicited Goods & Services Act I exercise my right to reject the invoice (NTK). And under the Consumer Regs linked in point #6 I hereby cancel the contract (which is denied anyway) and as soon as Park Direct reads this they will be deemed to have received my Notice of Cancellation. This is not a situation where a trader can recover a charge and it also breaches the CPUTRs 2008, as amended by regulation 39 of the following:


6. Failure to comply with the Consumer Contracts(Information, Cancellation and Additional Payments) Regulations 2013
These Regulations apply to all UK consumer contracts from June 2014. This is a service contract* offered by written terms in print on a sign which is a means of distance communication (i.e. not a face-to-face contract in the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer).
In the UK Regulations:
* “service contract” means a contract, other than a sales contract, under which a trader supplies or agrees to supply a service to a consumer and the consumer pays or agrees to pay the price.''

From the EU Guidance behind the Directive upon which the UK Law is based:
''Service contracts...should be included in the scope of this Directive, as well as contracts related to...the rental of accommodation for non-residential purposes.

For example, renting a parking space...is subject to the Directive. ''

Part 4 of these Regulations has provisions concerning protection from unsolicited sales and additional charges which have not been expressly agreed in advance (this was an unsolicited ‘service’ not expressly agreed nor performed at all, so this is a breach of the Regulations).
Regulation 39 introduces a new provision into the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 which provides that a consumer is not required to pay for the unsolicited supply of products (as happened here – the NTK is an unsolicited invoice).
Regulation 40 provides that a consumer is not required to make payments in addition to those agreed for the trader’s main obligation, unless the consumer gave express consent before conclusion of the contract (no payments were expressly agreed at all - the driver left).

Information breaches of these Regulations:
There has been a clear failure to serve by durable medium, ANY information as defined in these Regulations for Distance Contracts (i.e. not face-to-face) as set out in Article 13:
Information to be provided before making a distance contract
''13.—(1) Before the consumer is bound by a distance contract, the trader — (a) must give or make available to the consumer the information listed in Sch. 2 in a clear and comprehensible manner, and in a way appropriate to the means of distance communication used, and
(b) if a right to cancel exists, must give or make available to the consumer a cancellation form as set out in part B of Schedule 3.
(2) In so far as the information is provided on a durable medium, it must be legible.
(3) The information referred to in paragraphs (l), (m) and (n) of Schedule 2 may be provided by means of the model instructions on cancellation set out in part A of Sch.3;
(4) Where a distance contract is concluded through a means of distance communication which allows limited space or time to display the information— (a) the information listed in paragraphs (a), (b), (f), (g), (h), (l) and (s) of Schedule 2 must be provided on that means of communication in accordance with paragraphs (1) and (2), but (b) the other information required by paragraph (1) may be provided in another appropriate way.
(5) If the trader has not complied with paragraph (1) in respect of paragraph (g), (h) or (m) of Schedule 2, the consumer is not to bear the charges or costs referred to in those paragraphs.
(6) Any information that the trader gives the consumer as required by this regulation is to be treated as included as a term of the contract.
(7) A change to any of that information, made before entering into the contract or later, is not effective unless expressly agreed between the consumer and the trader.''

“distance contract” means a contract concluded between a trader and a consumer under an organised distance sales or service-provision scheme without the simultaneous physical presence of the trader and the consumer, with the exclusive use of one or more means of distance communication up to and including the time at which the contract is concluded'' (EU definition).

Everything has been omitted, including no information given about the right to withdraw (there is no exemption from this even for distance contracts with limited space or time).


7. Lack of sufficient contractual authority

Park Direct have no standing as they are an agent, not the landowner. They also have no BPA-compliant landowner contract containing wording specifically assigning them any rights to form contracts with drivers in their own name, nor to pursue these charges in their own name in the Courts.

I put Park Direct to strict proof of the above in the form of their unredacted contract. Even if a basic site agreement is produced and mentions PCNs, the lack of ownership or assignment of title or interest in the land reduces any contract to one that exists simply on an agency basis between Park Direct and their client, containing nothing that could impact on a third party customer. Also the contract must be with the landowner - not another agent - and must comply with paragraph 7 of the BPA CoP and show that this contravention can result in this charge at this car park and that Park Direct can form contracts with drivers in their own right. The whole contract is required to be produced, in order to ensure whether it is with the actual landowner, whether money changes hands which must be factored into the sum charged.


8. Breach of DVLA KADOE contract. No audit trail and no reasonable cause.
Operators are only authorised under their KADOE contract with the DVLA to request keeper’s data if one of the following has arisen:

- where a PCN on a windscreen has already been issued, in the case of a manned car park.
OR
- where the issue of a PCN by post is planned (without a windscreen PCN) - this being allowed only in the case of an ANPR camera car park.

This case was neither. It lacks the required audit trail the DVLA insist upon from all AOS members. DVLA Inspectors enforce the rule: 'all vehicles should be ticketed where ANPR technology is not utilised'. This is a fact in the public domain via FOI:
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency - November 2012
‘‘I have since my visit taken further instruction on this procedure. Please would you note that if an operator has the ability to take a photograph of the offending vehicle they should also place a ticket on the vehicle and allow the transgressor time to pay before data is requested from DVLA. I advise that all vehicles should be ticketed where ANPR technology is not utilised.
Summary of Issues: {Operator} to cease making vehicle keeper enquiries to DVLA where ANPR technology has not been used, and vehicles have not been ticketed. (Lack of Audit Trail) ’’

This was not a car park with ANPR cameras. An operative took manual photographs there was no attempt to issue the penalty at the time of the alleged parking . So it is a non-ANPR case for which there MUST be a Notice to Driver served first and 28 days allowed for the driver to appeal or pay. In fact, 28 days was not allowed, a hybrid Notice was posted early, as soon as Park Direct got my data soon afterwards. There was no PCN served so this should never have progressed and it constitutes a DVLA and ICO rules breach - this matter is a common scam played out by Park Direct and it is the subject of several current complaints to the BPA.

This makes a mockery of the DVLA KADOE contract, their ICO registration, the POFA, the BPA CoP and Consumer Protection regulations. I believe this is a case that should also be raised to the attention of the Lead Adjudicator for his next report and for POPLA to forward to the BPA as an example of continuing expressly disallowed procedure.

9. Operation is not reasonable, consistent or transparent

It would appear that the 'parking attendant' used a handheld ordinary camera/phone to take photographs and there was no windscreen PCN issued so the driver had no idea of any contract nor any alleged breach. I don't believe that the person was wearing any kind of uniform or ID showing they are involved with 'parking enforcement' while the parking attendant proceeded to secretly take photos of the vehicle without making themselves known to the driver, as evidenced by the fact the images are all distant. I require evidence that the person was properly trained in the BPA Code of Practice as is required for any self-ticketing, as the lack of grace period and the secret pictures taken leads me to think this was not a trained operative. Nor were they using a liveried vehicle, and I contend that mobile phone pictures from a passer-by are neither reliable nor compliant with the BPA CoP as this is not a reasonable, consistent nor transparent operation. No attempt was made to issue a ticket due to but not limited to the use of non compliant photographs, untrained parking attendants and no uniform or ID and simply the vehicle was never “parked “..



10. Unfair terms - Unenforceable Disguised Penalty

The sign & the NTK are unclear, ambiguous & contradictory. On the NTK the sum is extremely hard to find, hidden in small print on the back. It is stated as a 'contravention' for 'breaching the terms' and this is repeated in the rejection. Yet the sign misleadingly alleges a 'contractual' sum. If so, there would be a time-limited stay, a payment mechanism and a VAT invoice. There is none. This is a disguised penalty. Terms must be clear otherwise the interpretation that favours the consumer applies


Yours faithfully